From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 19 10:21:29 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98BE616A4CE for ; Sun, 19 Dec 2004 10:21:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mp2.macomnet.net (mp2.macomnet.net [195.128.64.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A851443D55 for ; Sun, 19 Dec 2004 10:21:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from maxim@macomnet.ru) Received-SPF: pass (mp2.macomnet.net: domain of maxim@macomnet.ru designates 127.0.0.1 as permitted sender) receiver=mp2.macomnet.net; client_ip=127.0.0.1; envelope-from=maxim@macomnet.ru; Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mp2.macomnet.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iBJALN3B034772; Sun, 19 Dec 2004 13:21:25 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from maxim@macomnet.ru) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 13:21:23 +0300 (MSK) From: Maxim Konovalov To: Mike Silbersack In-Reply-To: <20041218033226.L28788@odysseus.silby.com> Message-ID: <20041219130649.F790@mp2.macomnet.net> References: <20041218033226.L28788@odysseus.silby.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: Formal (180/041217) X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: Detect Hard (4/030526) X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: SysLog X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: Marking - Keywords (2/030321) X-SpamTest-Status: Not detected X-SpamTest-Version: SMTP-Filter Version 2.0.0 [0124], SpamtestISP/Release cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Alternate port randomization approaches X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 10:21:29 -0000 Hi Mike, On Sat, 18 Dec 2004, 04:03-0600, Mike Silbersack wrote: [...] > Although this isn't a perfect fix, I think that it should be > acceptable for the vast majority of systems, and I'd like to get it > in before 4.11-release ships. To be conservative, I'll probably > choose a value like 5, which should be fine for most systems out > there. Super specialized users will always be able to lower it to > 0. Can we leave it zero by default? I affraid this patch won't get much testing before 4.11-REL. The super specialized users will always be able to set net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized whatever they want to. The next thing I am worry about - some users already have net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized=1 in their /etc/sysctl.conf and now we are going to change a meaning of this sysctl. Can we garantee there are no any side effects with this setting? I failed to find the documentation part of your patch also :-) -- Maxim Konovalov